Ok...is there any point where the US should take out NK nukes?

[Rustyeye77]

A. Only when they can obliterate CALIFORNIA
B. Only AFTER they obliterate California
C. Now, before they can obliterate California
D. Never


Just wondering what people think.

[JenniferJuniper]

1. I think Japan has far more to worry about. As for

your question, you may want to read this article.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/24/why-the-us-china-and-russia-cant-stop-north-koreas-missile-threats.html

[Rustyeye77]

2. I think I agree...Never.

[bhikkhu]

14. Not to mention, NK has enough conventional weaponry pointed at Seoul

to obliterate it pretty thoroughly and quickly. From what I have read. Korea is a beautiful place, beautiful culture, and it would be the tragedy of our age if it were destroyed.

[still_one]

3. That is why we should be working with China so it doesn't come to that

but the imbecile already poisoned the waters there

[mwooldri]

4. Obvious answer: D - Never.

We will have a UN team go in sometime in the future to ensure they are decommissioned.

The last nuclear device to be used in war will be the US bomb on Nagasaki, Japan.

[Rustyeye77]

5. Exactly.

I agree...Maybe after a California is nuked we should consider it.

[Iggo]

33. They're always salivating over California getting nuked.

I tell them, we don't live in fear over here.

[doc03]

28. I think Trump will use the next nuke, where who knows?

[tirebiter]

6. Avoiding a first strike policy doesn't mean we need a first struck policy

We have the capability to knock down missiles before they reach their target.

[greytdemocrat]

7. Only after

Getting China to admit they can't control him.

And that is not likely. But if Kim was stupid
enough to launch at us, take him out totally.

[Rustyeye77]

8. I agree...if any part of the US IS NUKED...

Take him out.

[TrekLuver]

9. Wouldn't that also apply to our allies? Whichever ones will be left lol.

[Rustyeye77]

12. Good question..I don't know.

If SK is attacked, what should we do?

[TrekLuver]

13. If they are our allies we must defend them. The NATO thing was only excercized once...

when we were attacked after 9/11.

[rug]

10. Yes. Right after you can explain what will happen next.

[BainsBane]

11. Do we really need more panic right now?

They test missiles regularly, and they haven't nuked us yet. The last thing we want to do is encourage Trump to start war.

[Rustyeye77]

15. We should deal with reality.

It IS moving in that direction.

[Iggo]

34. I agree. And the reality is they're doing the same shit they always do.

Either yer scared or ya ain't.

[libtodeath]

17. Never

[Rustyeye77]

18. Never ?

Not even if they nuke South Korea?
Not even if they nuke Japan?
Not even if they nuke California ?

tough stance.

[libtodeath]

21. I dont believe in using nukes under any circumstances.

[former9thward]

19. C.

Clinton should have done it. Bush should have done it. Obama should have done it. To say we should wait until they launch a nuclear attack is mind blowing.

[Rustyeye77]

20. There are some people here who would...

give you an argument about that.

[LanternWaste]

23. Might does seem to make right, and allows us to justify aggression

Might does seem to make right, and allows us to justify aggression without resorting to the inconvenience of ethics.

Mind blowing, indeed.

[Generic Other]

22. They run on computers

We know how to mess up computers.

[MineralMan]

24. Take them out in what way?

That is the real question, I think. Without knowing how they would be taken out, I can't vote in this poll.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

25. If it looks like an attack (on anybody) is imminent

That's really the only justifiable reason to attack anybody else period IMHO. We should definitely eschew the Bush (mis-)Administration's pre-emptive war strategies, which were a bad idea from the get-go (not to mention totally misused).

[stevenleser]

26. North Korean artillery with rocket assisted projectiles would devastate Seoul in response.

There is a reason no one has tried this. The military picture is much more complicated and the potential for a catastrophe is great even assuming we could destroy all their nukes in one strike.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-no-one-in-korea-wants-war-2013-4

Even without nuclear weapons, North Korea has an ace in the hole. Most experts believe its claims to have enough conventional firepower from its artillery units to devastate the greater Seoul area, South Korea's bustling capital of 24 million. Such an attack would cause severe casualties — often estimated in the hundreds of thousands — in a very short period of time.

Many of these artillery batteries are already in place, dug in and very effectively camouflaged, which means that U.S. and South Korean forces cannot count on being able to take them out before they strike. Experts believe about 60 percent of North Korea's military assets are positioned relatively close to the Demilitarized Zone separating the countries.

North Korea's most threatening weapons are its 170 mm Koksan artillery guns, which are 14 meters long and can shoot conventional mortar ammunition 40 kilometers (25 miles). That's not quite enough to reach Seoul, which is 50 kilometers (30 miles) from the DMZ. But if they use rocket-assisted projectiles, the range increases to about 60 kilometers (37 miles). Chemical weapons fired from these guns could cause even greater mayhem.

North Korea experts Victor Cha and David Kang posted on the website of Foreign Policy magazine late last month that the North can fire 500,000 rounds of artillery on Seoul in the first hour of a conflict.

[democratisphere]

27. Never.

[betsuni]

29. North Korea isn't a threat, they're always doing missile things.

Threatening to launch missiles, attempting to launch them and they explode before take-off, launching them and they fall into the sea; footage of Kim Jong-un pointing at missiles, nervous generals in badly fitting commie uniforms clapping and praying they're not going to be executed. I've said this here before and was scolded by a couple of guys who live in Japan who evidently don't think NK is always doing missile things to get attention. Wrong. Nobody even freaks out anymore.

NK could be liberated in a few days if anyone would take my advice. Food. Air-drop food. They don't have enough to eat. Nothing works there. Of course the propaganda has brainwashed Koreans to think Americans, Japanese, etc., are evil monsters who want to kill them, but in the U.S., Republicans pretty much think the same thing about Democrats, so ... maybe overcoming the propaganda would be easier in Korea.

[Botany]

30. If North Korea ever loaded an operative nuclear weapon on an ICBM ....

.... it would be blown up on the pad. Right now NK can't get a missile to go
over a few hundred miles.

My real fear is that Trump will use NK as an excuse for something stupid.

[doc03]

31. How? Short of using nukes how do you do it? nt

[procon]

32. Why do you think our defense capabilities are so inadequate?

I hear this scary theme from other rightwing apparatchiks, but c'mon, we have the biggest military in the world and you're equating our state of the art arsenal and missile defense force with some backwards third world country using a refurbished missile launcher bolted onto an old pickup truck.

Remember your history? Back in the Bush Administration we likewise had a White House that was dangerously indifferent to facts. Using the same premise you've submitted, that the US should use nukes first before No. Korea can obliterate California, the diabolical Dick Cheney came up with the 'The One Percent Doctrine'. This fallacy concocted the notion that the US could order a preemptive strike without the need for evidence because Cheney said that even if there was only a one percent chance of something happening, then we would treat it was a eminent threat and act accordingly. Bush accepted that view and went on to substitute mere suspicion for evidence in Iraq.

Let's not reconstitute Dick Cheney's 'The One Percent Doctrine'.

[Rustyeye77]

35. kick for am posters and opinions